What struck me in Palin's speech is how invisible Rep. Giffords was, even though it was Palin who called attention to Giffords when Palin put the crosshairs of a rifle directly on Giffords.

At the very least, you'd think Palin could have had the common decency to acknowledge the "strange coincidence" of Giffords being targetted with rifle crosshairs on Palin's map and the attempted assassination of Giffords.

Since it is open to debate whether the link is causal or not, Palin didn't necessarily have to step forward and assume responsibility (which she obviously would never do anyway, as shown in her speech), but would it have hurt, as a minimal recognition of Gifford as a human being nearly assassinated by a bullet, to at least note in passing even how "ironic" it is that all of this played out the way it did.

But no--Giffords was mostly invisible in Palin's speech. Even though Giffords lived and others around her died, it was, after all, Giffords that was the target of the violence.

The other thing I noticed about Palin's speech is that she tried to turn around the criticism she and Beck have received and direct it back at "liberals." She seems to be arguing that her violent rhetoric couldn't possibly be connected with the Arizona shooting, but then Palin turns around and warns that anyone who talks about Palin's violent rhetoric is inciting others (presumably liberals) to act out violently against Palin.

So here is our lesson for today:
***Palin's rhetoric urging listeners to take violent action is harmless.

***Liberals objecting to Palin's violent rhetoric will cause others to try to take violent action against Palin.

I don't have the bandwidth for videos so found the text on NPR's The Two-Way.

a couple of selected paragraphs:

"Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event...

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country."

Sharron Angle also refuses to acknowledge that anything she said should have been done differently:

"Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people's Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant," she said. "The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger."

And not many positive responses to Sarah Palin's tact:

"Whether it was her intention or not today, she is feeding the beast of what has really been a pretty nasty ideological finger-pointing fight that we have been watching on Twitter and the Internet and on some forms of cable television," NBC News' Chuck Todd said on MSNBC.

"There was some sympathy for Palin over being tied to shooting, + she chose to go inflammatory," The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz wrote via Twitter.

It's always about Queen Sarah. It's all about the finger pointing to her and her ilk..You lie, ..Joe Wilson, the T party guy who was Gabby's opponent in the last election who invited people to shoot machine guns at a political rally..etc. It's not about the the congresswoman with grave head injury or the many wounded and the dead. Did she mention she called Obama a terrorist and the "pals" he hung around with and when someone called "Kill him" at a rally, she ignored it? This is her last ditch effort to make herself relevant. She isn't and never was. She's toast and I kinda wish she wasn't. I want her to run so Obama wins in the biggest landslide in history of our country. It's always about her. , the half term governor who couldn't hack it. Did she even mention when the Congresswoman appeared on TV saying it scared her that Palin put a bullseye on her and others?

I wasn't confused about the name, just a poorly constructed sentence. I know who Joe Wilson the SC representative is, but I forgot the name of the T=partier candidate Jesse Kelly who ran against Gabby who invited people to shoot machine guns at his rally.

Dangerous enough to be kicked out of a community college.
That was Jared Laughner.Maybe this all could have been averted if the Sheriff and other members of his community had taken appropriate actions and had this kid taken off the streets.

Palin's fighting words will be an interesting backdrop to Obama's speech at the memorial this evening.
I think Olberman, who has a special live edition at 11 p.m. Eastern, will not be at a loss for words in drawing that contrast.

Lily: Don't worry about Palin leaving the stage any time soon. This latest controversy has merely demonstrated how far the Right will go to make sure she remains viable as a candidate for the Republican nomination...and how fearful Republicans who may run against her are of her political power within the GOP.

Pawlenty, a likely GOP candidate for the nomination, did not criticize Palins tactics or even the way she placed Gabby in the crosshairs. He merely stated that he did not know if he would have done things the way Palin did...and that every politician has their own "style."
After saying that, the Tbaggers went AWOL and he began to backtrack and make sure Pawlenty was not criticizing Palin.

We may still be treated to seeing a landslide for Obama against Palin. Can you imagine what the "I want my country" gunmanic Obama haters and the Fox Newsers will do then? I know I would be LMAO.

Since no one else has brought it up, I will. Let me congratulate Sarah for her fine work - a non-apology and insulting Jews all in one shot.

I wonder what fool gave her the advice to use the phrase "blood libel" and why in her right mind would she use it? She is clearly that stupid. How revolting that a woman who wants to lead the free world doesn't even grasp what is behind this phrase and would use it to help her try to weasel out of other bad behavior. How stupid can one person be - and her advisors are no better. If she didn't know what it meant then she shouldn't have used it and if she did, she shouldn't have used it. Another example of just how ignorant, stupid and divisive she is.

United States Jewish leaders condemned Wednesday Sarah Palin's statement comparing the accusations against her in the wake of the shooting attack on Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to blood libel, a centuries-old claim that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rites.

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) President and CEO David A. Harris said in a statement. "Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today."

"This [blood libel] is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today", Harris added.

President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer said in a statement that "the term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line."

"In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel," Greer said, adding "in addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as 'Nazis.' Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem."

"But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin's map showing her district in the crosshairs," Greer said

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman said "In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country," Foxman said, adding "still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

There isn't a lick of common sense in that woman. I am waiting for the usual suspects to come on here and once again try to pretend that the anger at Palin is nothing more than jealousy. They are as foolish and disconnected as Palin.

My hand literally flew to my mouth. I cringed at the term "blood" - I had no idea of the reference. That is bone chilling. Just absolutely horrible and ironic in the context of be careful with your words and their consequence! How could they use the term blood libel when that is the reference? OMG!

Coincidentally, I had just finished reading the book The Finkler Question last night, which referenced "blood libel" in the context of Jewish history in an incisive way. So when I hit that part while watching her video, I had to click off. Yuk.

"Dangerous enough to be kicked out of a community college.
That was Jared Laughner.Maybe this all could have been averted if the Sheriff and other members of his community had taken appropriate actions and had this kid taken off the streets."

This is a disingenuous argument because no one who is legally an adult can be committed without their consent or arrested without committing a crime. Unless and until they actually do something that gets them into the system, like committing a crime or being so crazy in public that it results in calling the police, we can't just round up the odd folks and institutionalize them.

Heck, we can't even compel people who are already in prison to take their meds. If they refuse there isn't a darn thing anyone can do about it. But at least the jailbirds are already contained for now. Still, you can't arrest people for just being crazy and/or weird.

It is not hard to believe that "blood libel" got past the air head. What is hard to believe is that it got past the people who vetted that speech.
This was not an off-the-cuff comment on the campaign trail, but a carefully constructed and vetted speech released purposefully on the day Obama will address the victims and the nation at the memorial. The timing was terrible and the content was unapologetic, provocative and vindictive. it was also lame. How about Palin mentioning that politicians used to have duels ? Is that supposedly some kind of excuse for Palin targeting Gabby in the gun cross hair ad and then refusing to acknowledge her protestation of it or have it taken down before she was shot?
Yea Palin vs. Obama. The most divisive election in US history or maybe a second Civil war in this country ....or maybe she just wants to challenge Barack to a duel.

I noticed it, with a gasp, but was so intent on finding something that even faintly resembled "mea culpa", I just kept reading. This woman is horrifying and mystifying in one ignorant package.

To wit: But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

What is reprehensible is this blame deflecting treatise.

I'm confounded that this idiot doesn't pay several people to do nothing but go over every word she says and writes larger than two letters.

Sarah needs to fire her spin doctors and get her money back. I find it hard to believe that no one in her camp had a clue what blood libel meant especially since conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds used the term in his op ed in the WSJ and was taken to task and yesterday Breitbart has been having a twitter war since he tweeted...

"And to the gutless GOP establishment who watches in silence the blood libel against @SarahPalinUSA. We will remember #TeaParty"

and it is still going strong. I am sure her people monitor Twitter, facebook, etc. so they should have been cognizant of the controversy surrounding that phrase. Too bad she isn't smart enough to actually know this herself or hire people that do since she wants to be the leader of the USA and there happens to be one or two Jews that live here.

She should have kept her mouth shut and let this pass. If she said anything she should have acknowledged that there is a perception that her words have been a problem etc. That is what she is paying the big bucks to her pr people for. To get her out of all the jams she keeps getting herself into.

Sarah needs a clue...every action has a reaction.

I read this today and IMO hits the nail on the head.

She is probably ignorant of its history as many people are of inflammatory expressions that get into our common culture's vernacular. What it does indicate is something far sadder and of greater concern. Sarah Palin's use of this term "blood libel" indicates that she sees herself as the victim this week. This is a profoundly distorted experience of reality that any sane person in this country from left to far right should see given that the true victims, the six Americans murdered have not yet even even been buried yet and fourteen other victims lie wounded in hospitals recovering. - Rabbi Irwin Kula

Here's some additional tweets from Breitbart over the last 24 hours. It helps show the true character of this despicable man.

Blood libel this: At end of day, political correctness is left's monitoring, policing, crafting language & narrative for its political ends.

I am always amazed by Twitter! Today I found out how many arm-chair Philo-Semitic etymologists exist online in real-time.

I used 'blood libel' because I thought using analogy of lefties at pinball machine in Jodie Foster film 'The Accused' was too obscure.

More fall out from words and it looks like it isn't who Palin wants you to believe that is concerned. The Tbaggers seem to be equal opportunity bully's.

Gabrielle Giffords' Arizona shooting prompts resignations

A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

In an e-mail sent a few hours after Saturday's massacre in Tucson that killed six and injured 13, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Miller told state Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen he was quitting: "Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home? So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman...I will make a full statement on Monday."

I want to make sure this thread continues a bit longer--so that more posters can learn about the effects of the violent rhetoric being directed against anyone who is not a dedicated tea party advocate.

I had never heard the term "blood libel" before, but there seems to be accumulating evidence that tea partiers are beginning to latch on to that term. Has anyone analyzed how they are using it, or mis-using it, as the case may be. If it is their new linguistic fad, it must be conjuring up images to them that somehow speak to their agenda, but I doubt concern for the Jews is part of it.

"Has anyone analyzed how they are using it, or mis-using it, as the case may be."

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has.

FTA: "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim" Dershowitz told BigGovernment.com.

"The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."

THE blood libel is responsible for antisemitism and the phrase is linked to an ongoing myth used to persecute Jews. The two words together in any other context are meaningless. If in some small corner of the world 'libel' automatically draws 'blood' to it without any knowledge or sensitivity to its historical use that is just iggerant.

If the outraged conservatives will please take note, I did NOT say or hint that Sarah caused the Arizona killings, so please drop that repetitive refrain.

I posted immediately after a message that informed us about a number of Republican officials in Arizona quitting their jobs because of the Tea Party threats they had received. My comments were in relationship to that information.

In addition, I was interested in the "blood libel" term. I did NOT say Sarah was guilty of "blood libel." I was merely asking what meaning that term had to Sarah and to the Tea Partiers (again, the previous post was about the Tea Party threats--so quit changing the subject to supposedly false accusation against Sarah. That is NOT what my post was about at all!)

However, I might add that not every Jew agrees with Alan Dershowitz. Here is, again, what Rabbi Irwin Kula had to say:

She is probably ignorant of its history as many people are of inflammatory expressions that get into our common culture's vernacular. What it does indicate is something far sadder and of greater concern. Sarah Palin's use of this term "blood libel" indicates that she sees herself as the victim this week. This is a profoundly distorted experience of reality that any sane person in this country from left to far right should see given that the true victims, the six Americans murdered have not yet even even been buried yet and fourteen other victims lie wounded in hospitals recovering.

My question is: Do Tea Partiers view the term to mean the same as the Rabbi thinks Sarah does? That is a real question, not a political jab.

Saint Palin has no reason to apologize to anyone. Her continued demonetization by you on the left is elevating her to Saint status. Everyday Americans know that Truth is on HER side and not on the side of leftinuts.

Mindlessly appropriating a phrase like 'blood libel' does not make it right to use. If Jewish people everywhere are seriously offended then it is wrong. Millions of jews over the centuries have been hunted down and murdered with this 'libel' one of the justifications. Surely their decendents get to decide if a term is appropriate for general use. I cant appropriate the 'N' word as a perjorative to describe my self as being dismissed and belittled. Can those of you who defend this use of blood libel understand that it is in the same category?

Sarah Palin is FINALLY "responding to national accusations against her"..Funny she picks a few hours before our president, someone who is the person qualified to speak on this tragedy. Hoping to deflect from him, Sarah? Didn't work, did it? For every Dershowitz, there were ten Jewish leaders who condemned her blood libel speech. As I said before, listening to her makes my ears bleed but I caught a few snippets. She is the worse speaker with her odd inflections and her twang and sing songy voice. Picture her giving a state of the union address, and the world as we know it will implode.

"Blood libel" does not refer exclusively to accusations against Jews. It does not refer only to medieval episodes that resulted in pogroms. It is a term that has been, and continues to be, legitimately used in contemporary American political discourse by all sides. Governor Palins use of the term is accurate, reasonable, and squarely within the bounds of accepted political discourse. It is her opponents attempts to falsely connect her to the Tucson massacre which is inaccurate, and unreasonable, and beyond the pale of civilized discourse."
from another comment on site:
To say Sarah Palin didn't understand what she was saying shows the speaker's gross lack of knowledge about Palin's history with the Jews in her state. Not to mention the fact that she reads the Wall Street Journal, since she had a back and forth with them a few months ago, and Glenn Reynolds at the WSJ used the term blood libel in his article earlier this week.

Sarah Palin both knew what she was saying when she said "blood libel", and she was correct in applying the term to her current situation.

My question was what do the Tea Partiers mean by the term when they use it? They started using it before the Arizona killings. How? To mean what? In what contexts?

Anyone notice that it is the Palin fans/tea partiers who refuse to let go of the "Is it Palin's fault" issue? Very few posters on these threads have made a direct correlation between Palin's words/action and the Arizona killings, but Palin fans/tea partiers keep repeating it over and over again so that they can repudiate it. And they keep repeating it over and over again in an overly simplistic form as though they think the accusation were that if Palin speaks, her robots obey. I do wish those people would graduate beyond the cartoon-level of human psychology.

Tea Partiers--you are fighting an imaginary enemy on this forum. Almost no one has said there is a direct causal link between Palin and Arizona killings.

It's my opinion that Ms. Palin and her speechwriters (can anyone honestly believe that she wrote any of this?) had no idea of what blood libel meant. I had never heard the phrase before, but that's because I haven't been reading the right-wing bloggers/columnists the past couple of weeks. I think they thought it sounded good, was part and parcel of her inflammatory style, so used it, not anticipating the firestorm over the true meaning of it.

She's just not that intelligent for me to giver her the benefit of the doubt that she knew what it meant.

Here is a perfect case of right wing tone deafness. When is it appropriate to wrap yourself in the victimhood of others? Blood libel is way more serious than simply being accused unfairly. To use it in that way is a perfect example of the sort of Hyperbole Tea partiers are so fond of. The very sort of hyperbole that people are more generally starting to rethink as not so wise.

Dershowitz knows the law and he is right.
No one person or group of people own any words or phrases.
This is one more instance of "demanding" political correctness, taking advantage of a tragedy to make political points, fueling the fire.
Sarah Palin had nothing to do with this shooting, she was immediately named by the Sheriff, she finally responding to the national accusations against her, then she is accused of making it about her.

The liberals using this tragedy to make political points is egregious and I predict it will backfire on them.
I guess the lessons of two months ago didn't sink in, did they?

Sunny, Telling us what the Jews for Palin have to say about this does not show that this is acceptable to the Jewish community at large. It is not!

Demi, Sunny, Nik - EDUCATE YOURSELF!

'Blood libel' has particular, painful meaning to Jewish people

The phrase used by Sarah Palin against her detractors usually refers to the false accusations made for centuries against Jews, often to malign them as child killers - and sometimes leading to massacres of their communities.

By Rick Rojas, Los Angeles Times
January 13, 2011

In saying her critics manufactured "a blood libel," Sarah Palin deployed a phrase linked to the false accusations made for centuries against Jews, often to malign them as child killers who coveted the blood of Christian children.

Blood libel has been a central fable of anti-Semitism in which Jews have been accused of using the blood of gentile children for medicinal purposes or to mix in with matzo, the unleavened bread traditionally eaten at Passover.

The spreading of the blood libel dates to the Middle Ages - and perhaps further - and those allegations have led to massacres of Jewish communities for just as long.

The term blood libel carries particular power in the Jewish community, though it has taken on other shades of meaning. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Wednesday that "while the term blood libel has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

One of the first recorded tragedies attributed to blood libel occurred in the 12th century, when a boy named William in Norwich, England, was found dead with stab wounds. Local Jews were accused of killing the child in a ritual fashion and, according to several histories on religion, most of the Jewish population there was subsequently wiped out.

Such charges continued for centuries, with Jews often assigned blame in the unsolved killings of children. Many of the dead children were considered martyrs; several were elevated to sainthood by the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches.

Allegations of blood libel spread during the Holocaust and persist today.

rick.rojas@latimes.com.

From David A. Harris President and CEO, National Jewish Democratic Council :
Following this weekend's tragedy, we -- and many others -- simply did two things: we prayed for our friend Gabby while keeping all of the murdered and wounded in our thoughts and prayers, and we talked in broad terms about our increasingly charged level of political debate -- asserting that now is as good a time as any to look inward and assess how all of us need to dial back the level of vitriol and anger in our public square. Nobody can disagree with the need for both.

Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a "blood libel" against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.

Perhaps Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today.

All we had asked following this weekend's tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Palin's invocation of a "blood libel" charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.

From the JTA:
Voices across the Jewish religious and political spectrums, from the Reform movement to the Orthodox Union, and from liberals to conservatives, echoed the ADL's statement.

"The term "blood libel" is so unique, and so tinged with the context of anti-Semitism, that its use in this case -- even when Ms. Palin has a legitimate gripe -- is either cynically calculated to stimulate media interest or historically illiterate," Noam Neusner, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, wrote on Pundit Wire. "It is therefore distracting to Ms. Palin�s underlying message, which is one of sympathy for the victims and outrage that she and others are being accused of inspiring a mass murderer."

And it is worth repeating Simon Greer again.
President Simon Greer was among the Jewish figures who said Palin erred in using the "blood label" term. He pointed out in a statement that the term is not a synonym for false accusation but rather refers to a specific false accusation, adding that Palin's usage is "totally out of line."

"Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism," Greer said. "But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin�s map showing her district in the crosshairs. Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator.".

Palin's words reach back to sordid history
By ADAM GELLER
The Associated Press
11:10 p.m. Wednesday, January 12, 2011
NEW YORK - When Sarah Palin accused journalists and pundits of "blood libel" in the wake of the deadly Arizona shootings, she reached deep into one of medieval history's most sordid chapters to make her point.

The term "blood libel" is not well known, but it is highly charged - a direct reference to a time when many European Christians accused Jews of kidnapping and murdering Christian children to obtain their blood. Jews were tortured and executed for crimes they did not commit, emblematic of anti-Semitism so virulent that some scholars recoiled Wednesday at Palin's use of the term.

In a video posted to her Facebook page early Wednesday, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate accused the U.S. media of inciting hatred and violence after the shooting that gravely wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Palin has been criticized for marking Giffords' district with the cross hairs of a gun sight during last fall's campaign.
"But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," she said.

But some experts on the history of blood libel took exception to Palin's use of the term.

"In her own thinking, I just don't understand the logical use of this word," said Ronnie Hsia, a professor of history at Pennsylvania State University who has written two books about blood libel. "I think it's inappropriate and I frankly think if she or her staff know about the meaning of this word, I think it's insulting to the Jewish people."
Said Jerome Chanes, a research fellow at the Center for Jewish Studies at the City University of New York: "It's a classic case of, I don't know what you want to call it, semantic corruption."

Palin's aides did not immediately respond to an e-mail Wednesday.

Blood libel dates back to the 12th century in England, France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe, when many Christians believed that Jews killed children, usually boys, for supposed rituals including re-enacting the crucifixion of Christ, historians say. According to the belief, Jews would torture and kill the children and use their blood, often to make matzoh, the "bread of affliction" that is central to celebrating the Jewish holiday of Passover.

"That was the Christian fantasy," Hsia said. "In some of these cases, the Jewish community was interrogated and in many cases people were tortured into confession and executed. Sometimes the Christian authorities tried to intervene, but sometimes the authorities also believed in the supposed allegations."

Belief in blood libel spread through northern Europe before fading in the 18th century. But it reappeared in the 19th and 20th centuries, with cases as recently as one in Poland after World War II. The best-known case was in modern-day Ukraine where a Jew named Mendel Beilis was arrested in 1911 after a boy was found dead. Beilis was imprisoned for two years, but eventually acquitted, despite the attempt by prosecutors to pin responsibility for the murder on him based on his religion.

Palin is not the first to use the term in the context of the Tucson shootings. In the past few days, it has been used by commentator John Hayward on the conservative website Human Events and in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who runs the website Instapundit.

And the term has been used before, in other situations far removed from its original meaning. In 1982, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin said charges that his country stood by while Lebanese Phalangists slaughtered Palestinian refugees "constitute a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere."

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a written statement that it was inappropriate to blame Palin for the shooting and that she had the right to defend herself against such criticism.
"Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood libel,'" said Foxman, whose organization fights anti-Semitism. "While the term "blood libel" has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

Matt Goldish, a professor of Jewish and European history at Ohio State, said Palin's usage of the term led him to believe she did not know its history, but that he did not think many people would find it offensive.

"The combination of the words, blood and libel, obviously kind of ring up together," Goldish said. "And you can imagine somebody who's obviously heard the phrase in their distant past have it come up on their radar screen."

In the end, the responsibility for which all Americans will now hold their politicians and political entertainers is what will determine the road of our discourse. This forum seems to indicate that nothing will change.

Should Palin supporters, Beck supporters, Rush supporters etc, continue to wish for these people to carry on as if nothing changed then that is exactly what they will get. It is on the heads of the American individual as to what kind of discourse takes place in this country. It's another form of personal responsibility and in these times, a very large personal responsibility. For those who fiercely defend Palin stating that she and her fan base bear no responsibility whatsoever for the direction of division this country takes - then that is the America they will be held responsible for creating and maintaining.

There have already been statements here from Hot Topic members who flatly defend Palin and her like to bear no responsibility whatsoever for the direction of division this country has taken, and have not backed off this stand at all.

We have the country we deserve because we contribute to it's creation every day. We are what we say and do.

As individuals, we have the content of character we allow ourselves to have as we set our own standard. Personal responsiblity demands that a high standard be set and met. We are what we say and do.

Palin has now stated exactly the personal responsibility she has assumed concerning her words and maps etc. What an incredible opportunity she blew. Of course, if she had said anythig different, she would have lost her fan base and thus, her very good living.

These people are of their supporters creation. If you support them, they are a reflection of you.

That's correct. Anyone can make up a self-serving meaning for a well-documented historical phrase. Historical contexts and signficance are so over!

If a centrist can be called a socialist and/or terrorist, a certified U.S. citizen called a foreigner, and a practicing Christian called a Muslim, appropriating "blood libel" as a self-serving phrase is just the next (il)logical step.

That's correct. Anyone can make up an alternative self-serving meaning for a well-documented historical phrase. Historical contexts and signficance are so over!

If a centrist can be called a socialist and/or terrorist, a certified U.S. citizen called a foreigner, and a practicing Christian called a Muslim, appropriating "blood libel" as a self-serving phrase is just the next (il)logical step.

I couldn't believe Palin used the term "blood libel" in her speech. I'm sure she had no idea what it meant. One of her handlers wrote the speech for her and she delivered it as written.

Have you heard of the tea partier who blames Rep Giffords for her attack? He said, "If she was so afraid of her security, why did she hold a meeting in public?" Oh, really? Gee, maybe she wouldn't have been worried about her security if a certain person hadn't put a TARGET over her district!" Sheesh! It's called blaming the victim.

The least Palin could do is apologize for her constant references to rifles, reload, target,etc. What is it with these peoples' obsessions with guns? Enough, already!

**Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of the victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

**A false belief which has endured since the 1st century BCE. It states that members of a religious group kidnap, abuse, ritually murder and sometimes eat the body of a member of another religion. ...www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_b.htm

One does not have to follow the dictionary definition of any word, but most of us realize that using common, accepted meanings facilitates clear communication. Making up our own meaning or using it in a way understood only by a special group generates confusion, at least outside that special group.

She isn't an elected official, she's a private citizen.
...what she says is absolutely none of your business.
FACT.

Sarah is a PUBLIC SPEAKER. She gets paid to give her opinion in public forums, on speaking tours and in her very public role on TV as a paid talking head. She made it our business because that is her (only) business. She also let us in to her personal life with her reality TV. Most private people don't let cameras follow them around 24 hours a day either. She put herself out there willingly. She isn't a victim so stop pretending that she is.

Demi, I have falsely accused you of nothing! Like Palin you have dug your heels in and rather than admit that this was a derogatory statement, with a violent history attached to it, which offended an entire group of people and shouldn't have been said, you have come to her defense. You were silent on this thread only until you found one Jew who defended her so you jumped on it like a dog with a bone. Next you will be defending the use of the "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" as a reference tool and claim it too is innocuous.

If it has been used before with other meanings please give us examples besides Dershowitz. You KNOW this to be true since Dershowitz said so. I imagine you have examples readily available. When I Googled "Blood Libel" I found no other use besides how it has been used against Jews.

In the meantime, here are a few examples of how it has been historically used and the ramifications. All from Wiki because I don't want to waste too much of my time trying to educate the ignorant but there are plenty of other reference materials too. I apologize to everyone else for posting this but now Demi, Sunny, Nik etc. can't say they didn't know.

The phrase "blood libel" is not something that anyone with a modicum of intelligence or integrity would use or defend.

Educate yourself!

Middle Ages
Jews of Norwich were accused of ritual murder after a boy, William of Norwich, was found dead with stab wounds. The legend was turned into a cult, with William acquiring the status of martyr and crowds of pilgrims bringing wealth to the local church. In 1189, the Jewish deputation attending the coronation of Richard the Lionheart was attacked by the crowd. Massacres of Jews at London and York soon followed. On Feb 6 1190, all the Norwich Jews were found slaughtered in their houses, except a few who found refuge in the castle. Jews would later be expelled from all of England in 1290 and not allowed to return until 1655. In 1171, Blois was the site of a blood libel accusation against its Jewish community that led to 31 Jews (by some accounts 40) being burned to death.

The case of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln is mentioned by Chaucer, and thus has become well-known. A child of eight years, named Hugh, son of a woman named Beatrice, disappeared at Lincoln on 31 July 1255. His body was discovered on 29 August, covered with filth, in a pit or well belonging to a Jewish man named Copin or Koppin. On being promised by John of Lexington, a judge, who happened to be present, that his life should be spared, Copin is said to have confessed that the boy had been crucified by the Jews, who had assembled at Lincoln for that purpose. King Henry III, on reaching Lincoln at the beginning of October, refused to carry out the promise of John of Lexington, and had Copin executed and 91 of the Jews of Lincoln seized and sent up to London, where 18 of them were executed. The rest were pardoned at the intercession of the Franciscans

At Pforzheim, Baden, the corpse of a seven-year-old girl was found in the river by fishermen. The Jews were suspected, and when they were led to the corpse, blood allegedly began to flow from the wounds; led to it a second time, the face of the child became flushed, and both arms were raised. In addition to these miracles, there was the testimony of the daughter of the wicked woman who had sold the child to the Jews. A regular judicial examination did not take place; it is probable that the above-mentioned "wicked woman" was the murderess. That a judicial murder was then and there committed against the Jews in consequence of the accusation is evident from the manner in which the Nuremberg "Memorbuch" and the synagogal poems refer to the incident (Siegmund Salfeld, Das Martyrologium des N�rnberger Memorbuches (1898), pp. 15, 128-130). At Weissenburg, a miracle alone decided the charge against the Jews. According to the accusation, the Jews had suspended a child (whose body was found in the Lauter river) by the feet, and had opened every artery in his body to obtain all the blood. Again, supernatural claims were made: the child's wounds were said to have bled for five days afterward, despite its treatment.

At Oberwesel, "miracles" again constituted the only evidence against the Jews. The corpse of the 11-year-old Werner was said to have floated up the Rhine (against the current) as far as Bacharach, emitting radiance, and being invested with healing powers. In consequence, the Jews of Oberwesel and many other adjacent localities were severely persecuted during the years 1286-89. Emperor Rudolph I, to whom the Jews had appealed for protection, issued a public proclamation to the effect that great wrong had been done to the Jews, and that the corpse of Werner was to be burned and the ashes scattered to the winds. The statement was made, in the "Chronicle" of Konrad Justinger of 1423, that at Bern in 1294 the Jews tortured and murdered a boy called Rudolph. The historical impossibility of this widely credited story was demonstrated by Jakob Stammler, pastor of Bern, in 1888.[15] It has been speculated whether the Kindlifresserbrunnen ("Child Eater Fountain") in Bern might refer to the alleged ritual murder of 1294.

Renaissance
Simon of Trent, aged two, disappeared, and his father alleged that he had been kidnapped and murdered by the local Jewish community. Fifteen local Jews were sentenced to death and burned. Simon was regarded as a saint, and was canonized by Pope Sixtus V in 1588. His status as a saint was removed in 1965 by Pope Paul VI, though his murder is still promoted as a fact by a handful of extremists.
Christopher of Toledo, also known as Christopher of La Guardia or "the Holy Child of La Guardia," was a four-year-old Christian boy supposedly murdered by two Jews and three Conversos (converts to Christianity). In total, eight men were executed. It is now believed[16] that this case was constructed by the Spanish Inquisition to facilitate the expulsion of Jews from Spain. He was canonized by Pope Pius VII in 1805. Christopher has since been removed from the canon, though once again, a handful of individuals still claim the validity of this case.

In a case at Tyrnau (Nagyszombat, today Trnava, Slovakia), the absurdity, even the impossibility, of the statements forced by torture from women and children shows that the accused preferred death as a means of escape from the torture, and admitted everything that was asked of them. They even said that Jewish men menstruated, and that the latter therefore practiced the drinking of Christian blood as a remedy.

At B'sing (Bazin, today Pezinok, Slovakia), it was charged that a nine-year-old boy had been bled to death, suffering cruel torture; thirty Jews confessed to the crime and were publicly burned. The true facts of the case were disclosed later, when the child was found alive in Vienna. He had been stolen by the accuser, Count Wolf of Bazin, as a fiendish means of ridding himself of his Jewish creditors at Bazin.

Baroque
At Rinn, near Innsbruck, a boy named Andreas Oxner (also known as Anderl von Rinn) was said to have been bought by Jewish merchants and cruelly murdered by them in a forest near the city, his blood being carefully collected in vessels. The accusation of drawing off the blood (without murder) was not made until the beginning of the 17th century, when the cult was founded. The older inscription in the church of Rinn, dating from 1575, is distorted by fabulous embellishments�for example, that the money paid for the boy to his godfather turned into leaves, and that a lily blossomed upon his grave. The cult continued until officially prohibited in 1994 by the Bishop of Innsbruck.

The only child-saint in the Russian Orthodox Church is the six-year-old boy Gavriil Belostoksky from the village Zverki. According to the legend supported by the church, the boy was kidnapped from his home during the holiday of Passover while his parents were away. Shutko, who was a Jew from Białystok, was accused in bringing the boy to Białystok, poking him with sharp objects and draining his blood for nine days, then bringing the body back to Zverki and dumping at a local field. A cult developed, and the boy was canonized in 1820. His relics are still the object of pilgrimage. On All Saints Day, July 27, 1997, the Belorussian state TV showed a film alleging the story is true. The revival of the cult in Belarus was cited as a dangerous expression of antisemitism in international reports on human rights and religious freedoms and were passed to the UNHCR.

Modern
1840 Damascus affair: In February, at Damascus, a Catholic monk named Father Thomas and his servant were murdered. The accusation of ritual murder was brought against members of the Jewish community of Damascus

1840 Rhodes blood libel: The Jews of Rhodes, during the Ottoman Empire, were accused of murdering a Greek Christian boy. The libel was supported by the local governor and the European consuls posted to Rhodes. Several Jews were arrested and tortured, and the entire Jewish quarter was blockaded for twelve days. An investigation carried out by the central Ottoman government found the Jews to be innocent.

In March 1879, ten Jewish men from a mountain village were brought to Kutaisi, Georgia to stand trial for the alleged kidnapping and murder of a Christian girl. The case attracted a great deal of attention in Russia (of which Georgia was then a part): "While periodicals as diverse in tendency as Herald of Europe and Saint Petersburg Notices expressed their amazement that medieval prejudice should have found a place in the modern judiciary of a civilized state, New Times hinted darkly of strange Jewish sects with unknown practices."[25] The trial ended in acquittal, and the orientalist Daniel Chwolson published a refutation of the blood libel.

1882 Tiszaeszlr blood libel: The Jews of the village Tiszaeszlr, Hungary were accused with the ritual murder of a fourteen-year-old Christian girl, Eszter Solymosi. The case was one of the main causes of the rise of antisemitism in the country. The accused persons were eventually acquitted.

In the 1899 Hilsner Affair, Leopold Hilsner, a Jewish vagabond, was accused of murdering a nineteen-year-old Christian woman, Aneka Hrůzov, with a slash to the throat. Despite the absurdity of the charge and the relatively progressive nature of society in Austria-Hungary, Hilsner was convicted and sentenced to death. He was later convicted of an additional unsolved murder, also involving a Christian woman. In 1901, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Tom Masaryk, a prominent Austro-Czech philosophy professor and future president of Czechoslovakia, spearheaded Hilsner's defense. He was later blamed by Czech media because of this. In March 1918, Hilsner was pardoned by Austrian emperor Charles I. He was never exonerated, and the true guilty parties were never found.

The 1903 Kishinev pogrom, an anti-Jewish revolt, started when an anti-Semitic newspaper wrote that a Christian Russian boy, Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town of Dubossary, alleging that the Jews killed him in order to use the blood in preparation of matzo. Around 49 Jews were killed and hundreds were wounded, with over 700 houses being looted and destroyed.

In the 1910 Shiraz blood libel, the Jews of Shiraz, Iran, were falsely accused of murdering a Muslim girl. The entire Jewish quarter was pillaged; the pogrom left 12 Jews dead and about 50 injured.

In Kiev, a Jewish factory manager, Menahem Mendel Beilis, was accused of murdering a Christian child and using his blood in matzos. He was acquitted by an all-Christian jury after a sensational trial in 1913.

In 1928, the Jews of Massena, New York, were falsely accused of kidnapping and killing a Christian girl in the Massena blood libel.

1946 Kielce pogrom against Holocaust survivors in Poland was sparked by an accusation of blood libel.

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia (r. 1964�1975) made accusations against Parisian Jews that took the nature of a blood libel.

The Matzah Of Zion was written by the Syrian Defense Minister, Mustafa Tlass in 1986. The book concentrates on two issues: renewed ritual murder accusations against the Jews in the Damascus affair of 1840, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[27] The book was cited at a United Nations conference in 1991 by a Syrian delegate.

Contemporary
On October 21, 2002, the London-based Arabic paper Al-Hayat reported that the book The Matzah of Zion was undergoing its eighth reprint and was being translated into English, French and Italian.

In 2003 a private Syrian film company created a 29-part television series Ash-Shatat ("The Diaspora"). This series originally aired in Lebanon in late 2003 and was broadcast by Al-Manar, a satellite television network owned by Hezbollah. This TV series, based on the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, shows the Jewish people as engaging in a conspiracy to rule the world, and presents Jews as people who murder Christian children, drain their blood and use this blood to bake matzah.

In early January 2005, some 20 members of the Russian State Duma publicly made a blood libel against the Jewish people. They approached the Prosecutor General's Office and demanded that Russia "ban all Jewish organizations." They accused all Jewish groups of being extremists and of being "anti-Christian and inhumane, which practices extend even to ritual murders."

Alluding to previous antisemitic Russian court decrees that accused the Jews of ritual murder, they wrote that "Many facts of such religious extremism were proven in courts." The accusation included traditional antisemitic canards, such as "the whole democratic world today is under the financial and political control of international Jewry. And we do not want our Russia to be among such unfree countries".

This demand was published as an open letter to the prosecutor general, in Rus Pravoslavnaya (Russian: Русь православная, "Orthodox Russia"), a national-conservative newspaper. This group consisted of members of the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democrats, the Communist faction, and the nationalist Motherland party, with some 500 supporters. Тhe mentioned document is known as "The Letter of Five Hundred" ("Письмо пятисот"). Their supporters included editors of nationalist newspapers as well as journalists. By the end of the month this group had received stiff criticism, and retracted its demand.

At the end of April 2005, five boys, ages 9 to 12, in Krasnoyarsk (Russia) disappeared. In May 2005, their burnt bodies were found in the city sewage. The crime was not disclosed, and in August 2007 the investigation was extended until November 18, 2007. Some Russian nationalist groups claimed that the children were murdered by a Jewish sect with a ritual purpose. Nationalist M. Nazarov, one of the authors of "The Letter of Five Hundred" alleges "the existence of a 'Hasidic sect', whose members kill children before Passover to collect their blood," using the Beilis case mentioned above as evidence. M.Nazarov also alleges that "the ritual murder requires throwing the body away rather than its concealing". "The Union of the Russian People" demanded officials thoroughly investigate the Jews, not stopping at the search in synagogues, Matzah bakeries and their offices.

During a speech in 2007, Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, accused Jews of using children's blood to bake bread. "We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood," he said. "Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread."

This is a person who communicates primarily in facebook and twitter. The scrubbing is still going on realtime on her fb page. The comments are coming in fast and furious and any negative comments is deleted usually within a minute.

Ah well the Tzadik of Fox Sean Hannity will hold her hand and ask her "tough questions" about her choice of words & we'll just know everything then.
I appreciate the video of Gifford's calling Sarah out over the cross hairs on her district last year. I can't remember Sarah correcting us that they weren't cross hairs.
Pamela Geller & a few other see no problem with her choice of words over on Sarah Net.

Maddie, I cannot handle any more irrationality today. The far right seems to have totally accepted the notion that there is no facts or truth not fungible when manipulated by "spokespeople" such as Palin.

For a second time I posted exactly what I said and meant, which was minimal about the term used--I didn't even repeat the term.

Again, you have chosen to ignore what I posted which was:

* Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 13, 11 at 12:24

"Dershowitz knows the law and he is right.
No one person or group of people own any words or phrases."

*

I didn't find any "Jew." What are you talking about?

I did not post about the term other than what is posted above and then my following remarks:

"This is one more instance of "demanding" political correctness, taking advantage of a tragedy to make political points, fueling the fire.

Sarah Palin had nothing to do with this shooting, she was immediately named by the Sheriff, she finally responding to the national accusations against her, then she is accused of making it about her.

The liberals using this tragedy to make political points is egregious and I predict it will backfire on them.

I guess the lessons of two months ago didn't sink in, did they?"

*

And then after posting my opinion you call me by name and tell me I'm willfully ignorant. There was NOTHING ignorant about my post.

What's ignorant is your obvious jumping to false conclusions and not even stopping and considering that you're obviously so worked up and looking for a fight that you apparently don't even care who says what and who doesn't say what.

I haven't discussed the term, haven't discussed Jews and the term--only to say there is no term or phrase or words owned by any one person or group of people (other than copyrights).

THAT'S IT!

Spend and waste your time googling quoting, whatever you posted, I am not about to read it.

Until some of you people bother to read what is posted and not go off on some hysterical tangent, always assuming you know what the other person is thinking--and not only that, falsely accusing them--you will just not make any sense.

Your statement to me "

"You were silent on this thread only until you found one Jew who defended her so you jumped on it like a dog with a bone. Next you will be defending the use of the "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" as a reference tool and claim it too is innocuous."

I didn't "jump" on anything. You have no idea what I'll be defending next because I'm not defending anything--there's nothing to defend.

Sarah Palin used a term that people are free to use, that's it--that's the extent of my interest.

I couldn't care less what you think of the term or anyone else and you are full blown nuts if you think I'm going to waste my precious time looking up meaningless words on the internet to play gotcha--GET THIS:

I don't care, I don't care about the term, I don't care who uses it, I don't care what they meant, I don't care what you think about it.

The only thing I care about is that we have freedom of speech and it is preserved--no matter who is speaking.

Apparently this is some personal issue to you, I don't know and guess what--I do not care either. You are barking up the wrong tree and it's just nuts.

What lame brain Palin says is none of my business?? How odd. Why is she saying it? Who does she think she is? She's a quitter , a hater, and an unintelligent woman. She represents everything I hate. Everything. I can't think of one redeemable value she has. I can find smarter people walking down my local mall. But I truly don't want her to go away. I want her to divide the Republican party straight down the middle. Check out last night's memorial. THAT'S what a leader looks and sounds like.

Actually, Dershowitz's opinion just happened to agree with mine because it's my opinion she has every right to use the phrase without any need for an apologigy, regardless of the history of the use of the phrase.

I'm not interested in anyone's opinion as to whether she should have used the term because I couldn't care less whether anyone thinks she or anyone else should have.

You know what they say about opinions--everyone has one.
No one's opinion is any more important than mine, to me, unless I so deem it.

As I've stated--that's my only interest in this subject at all--whether anyone has the right to use that phrase.

It doesn't matter if she understands what it means as a phrase or not. I doubt that many of those that support her had even heard of the phrase before and knew what it meant either.

The important part was that it had the words "blood" and "libel" and people do understand what those mean. And both of those words fire off their own perceptions in the brain, each of them inflammatory in their own right. At a time when everyone else in the country (well except for Rush, Glenn and Sharron Angle) is calling for toned down rhetoric (including the head of Fox News), she chooses to use "blood" and "libel" in her comments - separately or together, the images are not examples of toning things down.

Doesn't real matter what the words, the important thing, the most important thing, is redirecting attention to the Palin Phenomenon. Worked like a charm. In HT we rage at each other over Palin's Politicking instead to paying attention to the many trends and events of greater import.

This has become a rather silly argument because the use of free speech falls under the banner of personal responsibility, sure you can say 'blood libel' but your right to free speech does not free you from the consequences. The unfortunate outcome of such loose usage of our language is that this one phrase is all that is talke about and nothing else from her speech. For instance she alludes to the need for debate yet has shown herself to be more comfortable when slinging out unanswerable nonsense. She would be a very difficult person to engage in a debate.

"...a lot of you are still just consumed and concerned with what she says and what she does."

Yep. She's a tough one. People who hours ago had never even heard the term "blood libel" are now laughably instructing everyone else, Jews included, on its usage.

Not even Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, whose grasp of both the law and Judaism is inarguable, can quell the frenzy.

When he said that no, Sarah had not used the term improperly, one of her loudest critics turned around and started in on HIM! That post really should have come with a warning label...Drinking while reading may be harmful your computer. ROTFLMAO!

I was wondering when it would be mentioned that Dershowitz was one of OJ Simpsons's lawyers. Lots of credibility there. . I'll admit I never heard the term blood libel before, and I am quite sure Palin never had either.

I guess conservatives are really into language identifying themselves with the Jews. That is really outrageous.If people don't agree with them, people are treating them the way Jews were historically treated? For real?

More hyperbole? Maybe hyperbole (crosshairs, blood, pogrom, etc.) is just their everyday operating mode. Or their way of pounding the table for emphasis?

Guess it doesn't occur to them that they are belittling Jewish history by insisting they are somehow the modern persecuted Jew.

Demi, she may have the right to say it but that doesn't make it right. She could have (and should have) admitted she made a mistake. That's personal responsibility.

I saw this in Crain's yesterday.

Sarah Palin learns Web has no undo feature

The former Alaska governor tried to take down her map with crosshairs over Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford's district in Arizona, but Google never forgets.
By Josh Bernoff, AdAge.com

Sometimes you make a mistake in the digital realm and you need to fix it. But once something is out on the Web and in social networks, you cannot erase it. Instead, you must apologize and move on.

The recent shootings in Arizona have created an interesting laboratory for observing this, because they caused a lot of the people who had amped up the rhetoric to wonder if they'd made a mistake. This post isn't about whether the rhetoric led to the shootings (that's not known and probably unknowable) or even about whether the rhetoric was a mistake. It's about how to step back from a mistake. Sarah Palin and her people did this badly.

As Erik Sherman shows in a BNET article, wishes she could take back some parts of her Web site takebackthe20.com. Her people had chosen the unfortunate metaphor of crosshairs on a map to indicate congresspeople to be targeted in the recent congressional elections. Now of course, they didn't mean literally targeted, but this looked pretty bad after the shootings. So they wanted to press the undo button.

The site's been taken down, but Google never forgets, so it's still in the Google cache. They said the marks were "surveyor's marks" rather than crosshairs. Hmm. The map was up on her Facebook page. It still is. That's where I got it.

This is a classic example of the Streisand effect, in which attempts to remove things from the Web cause them to spread (named for the case where Barbra Striesand's lawyers attempted in vain to get a photo of her house removed from the Web). But this case is different, because the graphic was posted by the same people who were trying to remove it. So learn. You can't take something off the Internet, even if you put it there. And attempts to do so only make it worse.

This could be you. We all make mistakes like this. When you make a mistake, own it. Apologize and say you were wrong. Say why you were wrong and what you are doing to make amends.

That's what Johnson & Johnson did when it offended mothers with an online video about Motrin. That's what JetBlue did when it stranded a bunch of passengers during a winter storm.

Apologizing is hard, but it's honest and people can see what did and how you fixed it. In the end, if you seek trust and a reputation for integrity, it's required. And it works--the Motrin and JetBlue brands took their hits and moved on.

Failing to apologize and trying to hide what you posted, on the other hand, doesn't work and ruins your brand further. Don't go there.

Poor poor Sarah and the conservatives. I didn't realize their plight. Why no mention in the MSM that they are being persecuted and forced to live in pogroms in deplorable conditions with no rights; within the confines of walls waiting...? I see the similarities, don't you?

There is a link to the original Washington Times post on this USA Today article.

What's the difference between political firefights and actual firing squads? Dead people.

The Washington Times has editorialized in support of Sarah Palin's use of "blood libel" to present herself as a victim of raging verbal attacks in the wake the Arizona shooting rampage.

The editors write that the barrage of criticism she faced for this is...

... simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers. The last two years have seen a proliferation of similar baseless charges of racism, sexism, bigotry, Islamophobia and inciting violence against those on the right who have presented ideas at odds with the establishment's liberal orthodoxy.

Pogrom? Is there no other vocabulary available to discuss the venom in our discourse without raiding the language that specifically stands for the deaths of millions of Jews in historic rampages of anti-Semitism?

On pogroms, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum scholars, looking at two centuries of murderous violence against Jews, point out,

The perpetrators of pogroms organized locally, sometimes with government and police encouragement. They raped and murdered their Jewish victims and looted their property.

On the mobile killing squads that were a direct descendant of the pogroms, the Museum's scholars write:

Its personnel directed massacres in Lvov, Tarnopol, Zolochev, Kremenets, Kharkov, Zhitomir, and Kiev, where famously in two days in late September 1941 units of Einsatzgruppe detachment massacred 33,771 Kiev Jews in the ravine at Babi Yar.

The great Russian poet Yevgeni Yevtushenko wrote a heart-breaking ode to Babi Yar full of images far more chilling than mere political critiques. In translation, one passage says:

I'm thrown back by a boot,
I have no strength left,
In vain I beg the rabble of pogrom,
To jeers of "Kill the Jews, and save our Russia!"

There's no question that incivility is rampant and intellectually poisonous. Just today a press release announced the demise of "The Civility Project" due to lack of interest."

It was launched by Jewish political pundit Lanny Davis and and evangelical public relations powerhouse Mark DeMoss who set out to sign governors and members of Congress to sign a 32 word pledge to civil discourse. They garnered three signatures from 585 political leaders. DeMoss told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC last night:

As a conservative, I am embarrassed. Unfortunately, I think one thing in America that really is bipartisan is incivility.

The call to civility isn't a call to unity. The bar is even lower than that. We should be able to disagree vigorously, but agreeably. Civility has nothing to do with beliefs, but everything to do with behavior.

Notice, DeMoss spoke from passion and point of view -- without kidnapping Holocaust vocabulary to make a point.

Is rapping Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh -- or Keith Olbermann from the other perspective -- really in the same league as political dueling? Is there no other vocabulary for public discourse?

When TPers and Ms. Palin are publically criticized for their use of overblown rhetoric with allusions to armed uprisings, their flaunting guns, hunting metaphors, and general fear mongering, what is their response?

The Cossacks are coming!!

You would think that those so enamored of a tough guy/gal image could better handle a little verbal heat.

She warned us! Who can forget her haunting words (and Tina Fey)? When Putin rears his head and invades America he's heading first to his next door neighbor...Alaska. Sarah said so.

As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where��" where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

If you had bothered to watch and listen, you would have discovered that while there were a few unusual moments, the memorial event as a whole was very moving, particularly President Obama's evocation of the beauty and meaning of the lives of those victims killed in the massacre, and the recognitions and appreciations of the various heroes.

The unscripted moment when President Obama announced that "Gabby" (Congresswoman Gifford) had just opened her eyes and the crowd roared with joy was a truly powerful and moving moment.

Some people just can't find it in their spirit to cut President Obama any slack worse yet to give him praise. The praise for his speech has been from all quarters....well not all quarters. Seems that a small number from the right didn't see it that way.

I was a little startled the first time the cheering happened but it was not for the President it was for his words. This is their community not mine, they are the ones wounded, not me, they get to handle this anyway they wish, I don't get a vote nor should I.

I agree if a person sat and watched the whole service they would have seen a somber tearful president, a first lady in tears hugging the survivors, and one of the best speeches and eulogies given to all the slain. The ONLY moment the president smiled was when he gave the news Giffords opened her eyes, and the audience cheered and clapped. The White House did not set the venue..the president of the college and the city of Tucson did. They wanted to lift up the spirits of the people of Tucson and they did, many said. There were 17,000 people there and as many in the holding area and many were college kids whose behavior might not have been dignified at times. More annoying to me was the noisy baby whose parents should have left during Obama's speech. But since excessive praise from both sides this week about Obama's speech and behavior in traveling to this event, I should have known that the right would start tearing the good vibes down. Typical.

I think your post is honestly one of the most sickening I have read on this board. How you truly dishonor the victims and heros and families to get your cheap political shots.

The event was called "Together we Thrive, Tuscon and America" and consisted of more than the president's speech. The event was meant to honor those that died and offer hope for the survivors and the nation. You would know if you had watched. The President spoke of each victim so we could know them - you would know if you had watched. The President honored the heros - you would know if you had watched. You didn't see the cheers and uproar when the surgeons came in that were treating the congresswoman. You didn't watch. It was like a 13,000 person support group in a sports arena with people hugging and crying and yes smiling. It was obviously a release for them after the terrible tragedy.

You would have seen the face of not only our President, but a father as he spoke of Christina, You would know if you had watched.

Some people just can't find it in their spirit to cut President Obama any slack worse yet to give him praise.

*

I've already complimented the President on his speech, Chase.

That has nothing to do with my opinion of how others acted, and how I feel he could have controlled that crowd somewhat by asking for the cheering and such to be toned down to be respectful.

*

Posted by maggie2094 (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 15, 11 at 14:04

"I think your post is honestly one of the most sickening I have read on this board. How you truly dishonor the victims and heros and families to get your cheap political shots.

The event was called "Together we Thrive, Tuscon and America" and consisted of more than the president's speech. The event was meant to honor those that died and offer hope for the survivors and the nation. You would know if you had watched. The President spoke of each victim so we could know them - you would know if you had watched. The President honored the heros - you would know if you had watched. You didn't see the cheers and uproar when the surgeons came in that were treating the congresswoman. You didn't watch. It was like a 13,000 person support group in a sports arena with people hugging and crying and yes smiling. It was obviously a release for them after the terrible tragedy.

You would have seen the face of not only our President, but a father as he spoke of Christina, You would know if you had watched."

*

--I have counted FOUR times that you told me I would have known IF I HAD WATCHED and another time what you told me I didn't see.

--what is sickening is that you presume to lecture and tell me what I do or don't do and you have absolutely no clue.
I've WATCHED what happened, after the fact, Maggie.

I never said everything that happened was bad.
Read my words--and I'm right and I stand by them.
It's not a political "cheap shot" it's the truth.

Aside from the very good speech (yes, as I've repeated, I complimented President Obama's speech on this forum just the other day but that's a fact and there are some of you who just LOVE TO IGNORE FACTS) given, and the positive intents, the behavior of some, and the tenor, was that of a PEP RALLY and not respectful of the deaths.

Keep your lies to yourself Maggie, DO NOT PRESUME to tell me what I watch or don't watch or listen to--how typically arrogantly presumptuous of a liberal--to you assume I didn't see what you did because I didn't view it the same way.

I only heard about the behavior at this memorial afterwards--shameful! It definitely WAS a pep rally.

If you didn't see it how do you know what happened and how can you make a judgement? Based on Malkin? Fox?

This memorial was not for your benefit. The only people you are criticizing are the people of Tucson and the University for how they chose to handle their own memorial. You want to believe that the WH was in charge so you can place blame when in fact it was a local event. Obama and the others were simply invited guests. There was nothing in his speech that anyone could consider inappropriate except those that like to exaggerate the truth aka lie. Video and transcripts of his words are easily accessible.

The only people that have been criticizing this have been conservatives and acting as if this was a WH event.

It was sponsored by the University of Tuscon based on what they felt the people of Tucson, the people directly affected by this, would have wanted and to be all inclusive. This sounds like the cackle of two little old ladies with nothing to do who sit and judge everyone else for sport.

Conservatives are all aghast about the Native American blessing too. Jon Stewart did a funny parody of the hoopla.

Send your complaints to the University and to the people of Tucson. They were the one's who planned this and the people who were cheering. Your words above show how little you know about the actual events you are critical about.

The Wellstone remark was repulsive but that is why it was used. Simply to instigate since it had nothing to do with the conversation.

I only heard about the behavior at this memorial afterwards--shameful! It definitely WAS a pep rally.

If you didn't see it how do you know what happened and how can you make a judgement? Based on Malkin? Fox?

*

Did it ever OCCUR TO YOU THAT I HEARD ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR AND THEN WATCHED IT, I JUST DIDN'T WATCH IT LIVE?

Apparently not.

I haven't looked at Fox or Malkin regarding this, I've been so busy lately I hardly ever turn on the television and haven't heard of anything Malkin has said since before the election, why do you presume that?

Get this through your thick heads--I read in the paper the President's comments and thought they were good. I heard elsewhere, from friends, and perhaps on television--don't rememember--about the pep rally nature, which surprised me considering the accolades here the day after the event.

Then I had the opportunity to watch it--you know they do TAPE THESE THINGS.

Good grief, that Presumptive Judgmental Liberal Forest is AWFUL DENSE.

Demi wrote that she " only heard about the behavior at this memorial afterwards" and proclaimed it"--shameful" hence maggie's chorus "You would know (different) if you had watched" a literary device to emphasis the obvious. One should never presume to tell another how to mourn especially if you only possess second hand knowledge of events and then go for double or bust by calling a critic of this presumption: presumptuous.

One should never presume to tell another how to mourn especially if you only possess second hand knowledge of events and then go for double or bust by calling a critic of this presumption: presumptuous.

*

Are you that dense, too?

WHERE did I tell anyone else how to mourn, inkognito?

Huh? WHERE? HUH BLACK AND WHITE! WHERE?

I have been asking this question about a lot things you liberals say and after your lies and false accusations there are NO answers and no black and white. WHERE?

I gave my opinion, as everyone does here, is that it is disprespectful. NOWHERE did I tell anyone how to mourn, I even stated that if anyone approved of cheering and clapping, GOOD FOR THEM! That is NOT TELLING ANYONE HOW TO MOURN!

Is is that difficult for you to understand? HUH?

**

So, according to you I have no right to have an opinion or comment about this rally because I did not watch it live, while it was happening, but later?

So because I had other things to do than watch live television at the time of the event and watched it later, that is "second hand knowledge?"

I only heard about the behavior at this memorial afterwards--shameful! It definitely WAS a pep rally.
But for what?

That was your original post.

You later tweaked it to this I've WATCHED what happened, after the fact,

So don't get upset when people are responding to your own words.

If you approve of the cheering and clapping at a gathering to remember people that were murdered, good for you.

I'm glad it wasn't my child, mother, brother, or husband being memorialized because I would have been offended.

I was offended for the families--poor taste is poor taste.

I have heard no complaints from any family members about the event the other night or about the applause for the heroes and survivors who attended. You seem to be one of the minority that are finding offence at this.

How people choose to mourn is not for anyone's approval. It's no one's business. People remember and mourn in various ways. I am glad it wasn't your family member also but if it had been then you would have every right to have contacted the University and let your feelings known - that you wanted only a somber memorial. Members of the Tucson community apparently felt otherwise:

During the President's speech, Sara Hummel Rajca clutched her camera. She's a member of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' staff, and was there the day of the attack. When asked if she thought Wednesday's event began the healing process for Tucson and the entire country, Rajca replied, "It's kind of hard to comprehend, and I was just in shock after it all happened and today it was just nice to be in such a community and hear such amazing words from such positive people."

You have lost sight that this was not only a memorial it was also designed to bring the community together and honor the survivors and the heroes who are still alive. That is what the applause was for.

People mourn the way they need to not how you think they should. Have you ever been to an Irish wake? An Indian ceremony where the color of mourning is white? Funerals and memorials of other cultures? They all don't kowtow to your standards. Arrogance is expecting everyone to conform to your rules and expectations.

epiphyticler, don't presume to tell me about mourning and understanding how other people mourn.

I have an up close in my face experience with mourning every day of my life.

I have stated my opinion, you do not have to agree with it,
There are those that thought the memorial was great, I thought it was disrespectful.

Apparently to some of you my opinion is not valid after I watched the event, but it was even less valid that not valid if I only heard that there was clapping and applauding from sources--apparently I have to see it for myself--which I DID--and it still isn't a valid opinion.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives--conservatives don't care if you don't agree with us, we may disagree, but feel you are entitled to your opinion with lecturing you.

Just a reminder: a more "traditional" memorial religious service was held the night before. Quite possibly there were no smiles or cheers there.

The televized event the night after was NOT intended as a substitute for the traditional memorial religious service. The televized event had a different focus and purpose, among other things, to help heal the community. Most reviews since that event seem to believe it accomplished that goal.

I echo Epi and will add that I for on don't believe for one second that you watched it, Demi. In the other thread about it you said you HEARD it was positive and in this thread you HEARD it was a pep rally. The exact same term used in right wing media but not immediately. You echo that. You went beyond just saying you didn't like is so hold the righteous indignation. I am sorry I even responded at all to your ugliness. You don't like the comments on Palin and it is obvious you felt you had to strike back. This is not an event that needs nitpicking and judgement. See past your hatred for the president for once. You claim to care about the families at the same time you disrespect them.

Has Sarah Palin offered up any apology or offered to cease and desist with her revolutionary gun rhetoric yet ?

For her to use "blood libel" after a Jewish American Congresswoman was gunned down was just a continuation of her attempt to rile up the Neo-facists, the Secessionists, and other assorted lunatics on the right. ....the kind that sway easily as "tide goes in, tide goes out..."

You seem to get into more arguments than most demi and mostly about what you think you said and how it was received which is often different. The regularity of this must point to something, mustn't it? I am not sure you understand that what you say does not have only a face value so that a complaint from you about the lack of decorum at the memorial service is actually telling other people how to mourn because it is not your way. I hope you read this as an attempt to let you see how others understand you. You do have a strong opposing view that provides food for thought but disagreement is just that and no reason to call another dense or for that matter liberal.

Epi--you're right. I shouldn't sink to their low.
No problem. I understand. ;) But you are right - don't go there-it smells. All good.

Paulines, you remained silent this entire thread and did not call out Palin or the others for their abhorrent words (Blood libel - pogroms) but now you come on just to get Maddie. You aren't very consistent. Maddie realized that she made a mistake (We all do) and apologized. That's called personal responsibility. Something that Palin, Breitbart, Malkin, Nik, Demi... amongst others you defend haven't shown.

Well I see Obama's call for civility hasn't hit this thread for sure. I knew it wouldn't take long for the righties to get agitated that Obama's poll numbers rose, and people were actually speaking kindly about him..even Republicans like John McCain. Can't let that happen. Let's find out from Palin and Rush our talking points..Okay I got them..It was a pep rally, that's the ticket.

Epi, clearly any 'apology' must be in your head, as none exists. Are you that blinded by and in your hate of conservatives that a disgusting, racist statement gets an upside down smiley face instead of one of your usual rants? This speaks volumns and goes noticed.

I voted for Obama and I don't care for Palin, to lead and/or represent. There was no need for me to jump into the fray, until Palin Jr's remark. There is no need to lecture me on when and if I choose to participate on a thread.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on why Palin got post after post of rant from you and Palin Jr got an 'it's cool amiga', for essentially doing and not doing the same thing.

I watched the memorial. At first the cheering was a little off putting, but then I realized, it was a celebration of the lives lost, those fighting to recover, and a country that needed to heal from the wound. I found the presidents speech eloquent and healing. As did I find the readings from scripture. That said, my opinion doesn't make it so for everyone. I've talked to others who found the format disconcerting and thought it to be disrespectful. I don't feel the same way. I respect their opinion and demi's. She doesn't have to think exactly the way I do. She isn't wrong in her opinion, and neither am I.

By the way I have found that the less in touch a person is with reality, the more agitated they become when challenged. It may be time for a reality check.

*

That is so ironic coming from someone that wants SOMEONE--anyone--to go to jail and pay for the carnage, other than the actual perpetrator. I'm not the one agitated, Eibren, and I wasn't the only one that noted it and actually asked if you were okay--your calls for revenge and punishment with absolutely no basis were disconcerting, to say the least. When I asked if you were okay you said no and went on a very emotional rant.

So it's quite ironic you even accuse me of such.
I suppose you think you're qualified to do some type of psychological profile on me? HAHAHA. All I said was that I thought the behavior of the crowd was disrespectful and that I thought that President Obama could have done something to soften that tone.

That's "hating" the President?

I guess if you don't kiss his shoes and agree with everyone you're a hater. Yea we've been hearing that for over two years. It's old, it's tired, and it's a lie and the only result from throwing that out is a hi five from like minded buddies.

*

I haven't done or said anything to apologize for.

*

Maggie, you can call me a liar but we know what that makes you--unable to read and comprehend simple English.

How many times (three, now, four?) do I have to say that I had HEARD what happened, after I had read parts of the President's speech--and at the time I did not know about the cheering and the other speakers--so right after the event, I posted along with everyone that I approved of the President's words.

Then a friend asked in a phone call if I had watched it, how shameful it was, and I said no--so then I went online and heard and saw the behavior.

I was nothing more than accurate when repeating that I HEARD about the tenor of the event, then I viewed it.
And no, I didn't waste an entire hour--I listened and watched a good bit of it, skipped around, and knew enough to make my opinion.

I have found that when I state an opinion or view a matter in an opposing way than others, the others tend to ASSUME other opinions and ASSIGN A MINDSET to me that most often could not be further from the truth.

MOST of the time, my comments address a very narrow element or issue, which has nothing to do with peripheral issues but others assume I mean other things other than what I actually said, I think primarily because that's the way they view people that have opposing views, so they just go there and make further assumptions without reading exactly what I wrote. There are countless times when posters have told me I think this or think that and NOWHERE have I said or even intimated such. They just assume because I think one thing, I must think another or I must support something else. Of all these instances, I cannot think of any answer to my "SHOW ME, IN BLACK AND WHITE" and there are some from the last few days and.........cricket cricket. Because posters CANNOT, and I don't even get a, "well, okay, so that's what you meant, I misunderstood" or, "I'm sorry."
I have from a few. I know who they are, they know who they are and that's good.

THEN there are those that just love to argue and pick a fight.

As already noted, we are all entitled to participate on this forum as long as we follow the rules--and we can post whenever and wherever we like and say what we want.

I am entitled to my opinion that the event was disrespectful, which I thought it was, and my opinion that I thought President Obama could have done something to tone that down, and that I thought President Obama's speech was a good one.

NOW--that is ALL I have said about the event.

From that, I'm a liar when I say I watched the event, an Obama Hater, I owe apologies, I'm agitated, not in touch with reality, and need a reality check.

I say look in the mirror to see hate for people that do not agree with you, consider apologizing for calling a person a liar after the person repeatedly stated she did view the event, read your own posts to see agitation, and if you think putting Sarah Palin in jail is something that should be done just because you want here there--again, that scares me to death that there is absolutely no respect for the rule of law or different opinions.

Just because you say it is so does not make it so demi. Consider the fact that your initial response to Nikoleta's post began with

SMOKED

and the one above addressed to me ends

"Now, I have much better things to do.

Run along little doggies"

What are these words, in BLACK AND WHITE, meant to convey? I'll tell you what they convey to me, they convey a superior attitude that is not interested in discussing issues but only in making a point that allows for no revision.

So you see, although you claim that we should regard your words only at their face value these two items above show me that something else is lurking behind the curtain. Perhaps others see that too.

I see you have like minded friends, Demi. Birds of a feather flock together, I guess. My friends , everyone I spoke to about it, thought the whole "pep rally" was a wonderful event. No Republican friend said one thing that wasn't positive especially for the president. Maybe you should seek out more conciliatory people to "pal around" with.

I did post "SMOKED" when Nikoleta made an EXCELLENT rebuttal to a snarky and judgmental post.

I seldom do that sort of thing, but considering the scores of times I see others do it on a daily basis--you know, the peanut gallery comments that don't add anything to do the conversation but seem to regurgitate ad nauseum--I have every right to do it myself now and then.

Maddie's comment WAS SMOKED by Nicoleta's comment.

If you (not necessarily you) spew something out enough in someone's face, you're going to get it back.

Get used to it.

*

As to the "black and white" I've been accused of saying things I have not said at all and asked for proof where I said it--quotes from posts. In black and white. No proof. That's what I meant. What else would you think I meant?

I don't know too many people here that are interested in discussing issues.

I'll tell you why that is--from the beginning, a person like me states my opinion, which may differ, or sometimes be strong.

And you know what happens? INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING THE OPINION, THE POSTERS DISCUSS THE PERSON THAT STATED THE OPINION.

Dismissals, insults, out of touch with reality--none of those posts have a thing to do with discussing an issue.

The only reason I come here is sometimes a few posters actually do discuss an issue. They outweighed the pathetic people who so obviously do not come here to exchange ideas but to call people names and rant about how unfair life is and how they are superior to everyone.

NO one is superior to anyone, and that includes me.
But everyone has their right to participate on this forum, you don't have to convince me of anything, I don't have to convince you of anything.

I think I would prefer demi's friends. People who have their own opinions about things and can respectfully disagree without snarking and carrying on like a disagreement in perception is something sinister. I read demi to say she had heard about the speech, and thought it was good, she watched it afterward, and didn't care for the "pep rally" atmosphere. Her opinion, which she shared. No discussion regarding why she felt the way she did, or why others felt differently. Just attack attack attack. How are many of you different than the rhetoric you decry?

I think I would prefer demi's friends. People who have their own opinions about things and can respectfully disagree without snarking and carrying on like a disagreement in perception is something sinister. I read demi to say she had heard about the speech, and thought it was good, she watched it afterward, and didn't care for the "pep rally" atmosphere. Her opinion, which she shared. No discussion regarding why she felt the way she did, or why others felt differently. Just attack attack attack. How are many of you different than the rhetoric you decry?

*

Exactly. Thank you, Mrskjun--that is an accurate assessment of what has transpired.

When I'm repeating for what seems like the umpteenth time what I read, heard and saw and in what order, and said I had talked with a friend that told me about the jeering and cheering, a poster does not do what you just said--ask why, or just ignore my post and move on.

NO, that poster--WHO DOES NOT KNOW ME OR MY FRIEND-- bothers to tell me, "Maybe you should seek out more conciliatory people to "pal around" with."

Liberals--so many think they know better than anyone about anything, including what kind of friends I need to have just because that friend relayed to me that jeering and cheering occurred at that event--A FACT!

ROTF and there's your evidence, people.

Deny it all you want.

Now THAT'S in BLACK AND WHITE!

Here's a newflash Lily--if I wanted to "pal around with conciliatory people" why in the WORLD would I bother to participate on this forum--yourself being a great example of a non-conciliatory poster, evidenced by your post to me?

Epi, clearly any 'apology' must be in your head, as none exists. Are you that blinded by and in your hate of conservatives that a disgusting, racist statement gets an upside down smiley face instead of one of your usual rants? This speaks volumns and goes noticed.

I voted for Obama and I don't care for Palin, to lead and/or represent. There was no need for me to jump into the fray, until Palin Jr's remark. There is no need to lecture me on when and if I choose to participate on a thread.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on why Palin got post after post of rant from you and Palin Jr got an 'it's cool amiga', for essentially doing and not doing the same thing.

Paulines, Maddie acknowledged her remark. She didn't defend it. She doesn't need to grovel or beg for my or anyone's forgiveness. She addressed it and (most of us) moved on.

I really don't care who you voted for (that isn't what this thread is about) or what threads you choose to participate in or if you participate in any at all. For someone who claims to abhor anti-Jewish sentiment it was surprising to see you give Palin and her defenders a pass and continue to do so while you only call out a poster who you don't like. Double standards. This speaks volumns and goes noticed.

Contrary to your ASSumption, I have no hate for anyone - not even Palin. I don't like her politics or her behavior and I think she lacks integrity or intelligence. I will do all I can to ensure she does not become the face of America but hate is too strong a word.

I have a low opinion of conservatives or anyone who needs to invent or twist the truth to try to establish they are right. I don't understand those who hold people to different standards or those who constantly stir the pot and then cry victim. FYI I feel the same way about liberals, dems, independents, libertarians, martians, etc.

I'm sorry but I honestly don't know how to have a discussion on a subject without involving the statements and opinions of another.

The manner and tone of how that conversation is conducted is a whole other issue.

What's suppose to happen? Is poster "A" suppose to state their opinion and then poster "B" state their opinion like opening remarks of a debate but then no discussion of points and counter points occurs?

Debate is almost always about opinion. Real facts are facts and we don't get to have our own facts but we do have the right to our interpretation of those facts. I feel that interpretation of facts IS open for debate and I will continue to do so.